Video: Romney rips Obama over kindergarten sex ed

posted at 2:52 pm on July 19, 2007 by Allahpundit

“I must say that Romney’s comments suggesting that Obama wants to teach sex education to kindergarteners is a little misleading,” writes David Brody. Agreed, which is why I didn’t blog this yesterday when I first saw it. Mitt’s feasting on red meat here but Obama’s definition of “age-appropriate” sex ed for kiddies seems to go no further than explaining where babies come from and where it’s not okay for Uncle Joe to touch you. And, per Brody, his plan includes an opt out in case you don’t trust public school teachers to handle those lessons with the requisite sensitivity (and who would blame you?). Romney’s high dudgeon here makes it sound like Obama had something more lurid in mind, which is both unfair and irritating insofar as it’s a transparent set-up for his new catchphrase about the sea that our kids swim in. Note to Mitt: the culture warrior niche is well and good but soundbites in volume about America being an “ocean of filth” tend to be off-putting.

So, rest easy. Your children won’t be finding out what a “golden shower” is until they’re at least 13, when Planned Parenthood will happily inform them.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

I think you may be missing a point here. How do you tell a five year old that babies don’t come from storks and are a product of mommy and daddy having intercourse without the deluge of followup questions that come with that?

How do you explain that a baby comes out of mommies vagina without getting into what a vagina is?

Anyone with children will tell you, they are perseptive, inquisitive little buggers.

Don’t start the conversation unless you are prepared for the consequences.

Kindergarten is just too young.

That being said, I am for attempting to let kids know from day 1 not to let “uncle joe” touch them or not to talk to strangers etc… Safety is a whole nother issue.

Most of the folks who want to teach sex ed to kindergartners want to talk about how it feels good when you touch yourself in certain places. As if they didn’t already know that.

proudinfidel, I’ve had three kids, the youngest now 15, and believe me, when you tell a small kid that Mommy’s going to have a baby, you don’t get more than one follow-up question. They’re not freakin’ Helen Thomas.

True story. My oldest was 3 when his sister was born. When we told him that Mom had a baby inside her and was going to the hospital, he asked, “How’s it going to get out?” I said, “The doctor is going to take it out.” That satisfied him. No follow-up questions.

Come to MA where Mitt is from. We’ll show you what this means in practice. Here, as David Parker what it means. It’s About time you start giving our side the benefit of the doubt there AP.
Lexington, Mass., father of 6-year-old arrested, spends night in jail over objections to homosexual curriculum in son’s kindergarten class.

Readin’, ‘ritin’, ‘rithmetic and rectal intercourse – what an education for the chillins. There’s a reason that college graduates can’t find the United States on a map of North America. It all started in elementary school – the parental abdication of their childrens’ education to the State. And that is exactly what the Socialists have intended.

Isn’t he jumping the gun a bit to be focusing on Obama right now anyway?

frankj on July 19, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Au contraire, mon ami. It is very wise for Republicans to attack Democrats in their primary rather than attack each other, which has been the order of the day previous to this from the McCain, Giuliani, and Romney camps (‘specially here in SC). Hitting Obama, Edwards, and Hill-de-beast should be the standard operating procedure right now.

School districts and public educators are always wringing their hands for not having enough TIME to teach academic curriculum. It’s no wonder, wasting precious classroom time “discussing issues” with little kids. Little children should be left innocent and not dragged into adult feel-good propoganda. Kindergarteners learn best through game play. There should be absolutely no “sex education” required at public schools. Do require physical education exercize drills while chanting math tables. We want our money’s worth spent on grammar/math/science/music/PE instead of indulging teachers’ pet projects. That bunch of bassoonists can’t force their tastes on other people’s children. Parents, demand vouchers or prepare yourselves to homeschool your babies. They’ll still be forced to swallow that crud at college via required curriculum and texts. Public education has become the most vile racket of society.

Personally, I don’t think children, especially 5 year olds, need a sex education class. They are just starting to learn their colors and such.

Overheard in kindergarten class:

That’s a nice picture of a bunny Lisa. Can you draw a blue ribbon on him? Lisa, did your mommy ever tell you where you came from? She didn’t? Shame on her! Let me show you some soft porn pictures so you can understand. Did you know that it’s perfectly alright for two men to poke each other in the ***? Never mind what your mommy said. You parents don’t know what’s best for you dear. I DO!

I have fought this sex ed fight in schools. Trust me, as you might imagine, “the enlightened” want to teach our children what THEY think they need to know and to hell with what you want. The “opt out” provision is a joke too. If you take it your kid is teased and you are looked at as a religious freak.

Obama said that schools should “provide age-appropriate sex education” Yeah, well who decides what is “age-appropriate?” They do, of course. Not the parents. I remember a teacher telling one parent who was a friend of mine that she was sheltering her kid too much and he needed this information. She KNEW better, don’t you see?

Explaining where babies come from to a five year old is ridiculous. They are too young to understand the logistics of it. My God, can we not keep our children innocent before 2nd grade????

You parents are SOOOOO obsessed with your children’s perceived innocence. If you don’t want your kids to go through the same painful loss of innocence that we all go through, then don’t have kids.

If you do have kids, couldn’t you just come to terms with the fact that they’re going to have sex eventually? Better that they learn about the risks early. Or are you worried that if they learn about sex “too” early, then they might be inclined to have sex outside of the Jesus-approved bonds of marriage some day? Do you really think that, with this nearly infinite universe of millions of planets and solar systems, that God and Jesus give a damn about YOUR PRIVATE PARTS?

Christ, just tell them where babies come from and what an awful pain in the ass babies are and your kids won’t have sex.

She KNEW better, don’t you see?

She might very well have known better. Being a teacher requires more qualifications than being a parent.

What possible reason is there to teach Kindergarten kids where babies REALLY come from? Are little children getting lost searching under cabbages for babies or raiding storks nests, perhaps endangering a species?

As the mother of a boy, I have strenuously objected to early sex ed classes which are just pointless at that age. Among my many objections is the unnecessary loss of innocence – as I have often said, I wanted my child to look at little girls as little girls, not “vaginas”

Indeed, I’m surprised that little boys who might want a baby sibling don’t try to impregnate little girls, what with all the information they are handed that they are incapable of assimilating properly.

I do think that “Oceans of filth” is not the best campaign phrase. Perhaps “the flotsam and jetsam of sex education” has a better ring to it, if we are compelled to use an ocean theme at all.

I like the oceans of filth bit. It is accurate and if he takes the lead and America responds, he will be the next POTUS. What good does it do us to send our soldiers to fight overseas to defend an ocean of filth?

You parents are SOOOOO obsessed with your children’s perceived innocence. If you don’t want your kids to go through the same painful loss of innocence that we all go through, then don’t have kids.
Enrique on July 19, 2007 at 4:22 PM

I take it you don’t have kids. Your “painful loss” explains your painful posts.
Not exposing (not a pun) your kids to the foolishness of the left is a full time job for parents. Just what we want our kindergartners to learn, family values from a government run school.

Why do you think that Enrique is SOOOOOOO obsessed with robbing our children of their innocence A.S.A.P.?

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that Enrique has “issues” and is very angry that everyone can’t have a miserable childhood like he did so they can grow up to be miserable adults like him. It’s not fair!

If you don’t want your kids to go through the same painful loss of innocence that we all go through, then don’t have kids.

Enrique, I don’t know what you were unfortunate enough to go through, personally, my childhood wasn’t the best either, but as a parent I do know I want my children to be children and as innocent as possible, for as long as is possible. They are my kids I think I have that right at least in this country, not to expose them to some adults screwed up propagandist agenda because they think they know what’s best! If they really want to do that to a kid they should have their own!!! Though I’m not recommending it at all.

So, rest easy. Your children won’t be finding out what a “golden shower” is until they’re at least 13, when Planned Parenthood will happily inform them.

You know, I laughed out loud when I read that. But then it made me kind of sad … because it’s close to the truth.

I spent some time with a young male relative recently, a newly minted college freshman who I’m 99.9% sure is still a virgin at 18. He may have never kissed a girl. Never had a real girlfriend, even though he’s a good looking kid. Just kind of shy.

But you know what? Even though he may never have loved a girl, I know for a fact he’s already seen every sex act imaginable, and a lot that I don’t prefer to imagine. I’m sure he knows exactly what a “golden shower” is.

Isn’t that sad? Kind of brutally sad?

I’m not exactly a prude – but it’s just not fair to our children. They deserve a chance to grow up on their own terms.

Hell, I wish I could erase some of the things I’ve seen. I can’t imagine how it affects 11-year-olds.

When parents have “the talk” with their kids these days … do the kids already know it all – and more? At least the technical side of it?

One of Mitt’s three legs of his campaign is strong families and cleanning up the the environment kids live in today.

He finds the perfect foil in a Democratic candidate who says he supports having teachers give “age appropriate” sex education to kids as young as 5 years old and takes him to task for it.

Fred is spending time trying to explain his mistatements and pro-choice past, Rudy is talking about no litmus tests for judges and Mitt is staying on message and hammering the messiah. Yea, hard to figure out who the better day.

Fred is spending time trying to explain his mistatements and pro-choice past, Rudy is talking about no litmus tests for judges and Mitt is staying on message and hammering the messiah. Yea, hard to figure out who the better day.

JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Translation: After a record of being a social “moderate”, Mitt is now pandering to the social con / moral majority crowd with the old “what about the children” ploy. Yawn.

Perhaps he should instead just pointed out how the federal government has no place dictating curriculum… or for that matter providing health insurance, or deciding what kind of rifle I can buy.

I’m telling you it’s like catnip. You are as predictable as the sun rising.

Small point that may have eluded you, Hollowpoint, Mitt has been married to the same woman for over 30 years. He has 5 grown sons and a dozen grand kids. As you so eloquently pointed out, its the record, not the record.

Romney has a great record on education and every time I challenge you to prove otherwise you got nothing. His healthcare plan, as I have pointed out to you numerous times, was designed in conjunction with the Heritage foundation and isn’t a gov’t plan or a single payer and actually saves taxpayers money. But you don’t really care about those issues or facts, you care about guns. Be honest and we can save time.

As to the type of rifle you can buy, which I have also pointed out to you, as has Ronald Reagan and the heads of every law enforcement agency in the country, yea, the voters do have a right to tell you what kind of assault weapon you can’t have.

I’m not sure I ever even brought up education; in any case it’s a state issue- the federal government has no role in education. Just as Bush has let us down by expanding the federal government’s role in education (despite lack of Constitutional mandate), so would Mitt likely do.

While his MA health care plan isn’t as bad as Hillarycare, to suggest it’s not costing taxpayers money is false- it’s a mandatory program, with fines for not participating fully. Even then I don’t have a big issue with it being a PRM (People’s Republik of Massachussets) matter… but he want’s to bring it to the federal government too. Just what we need- another entitlement program. You’re already on medication if you think it wouldn’t grow into another massive entitlement program as is always the case.

As for the gun issue- remind me which of the other amendments of the Bill of Rights that elected officials get to declare void? And before you say it- yes, Thompson voted for McCain-Feingold and I disagree with that vote. However he’s admitted it went too far and pledged to fix it. In contrast, after the evidence showed that the Clinton assault weapon ban had no significant impact on crime after being in place for 10 years, Mitt wants to bring it back. Not if my vote has anything to say about it.

Mitt is not a conservative.
Mitt is unlikely to win the nomination.
Mitt is even unlikely win the general election if he did.
Mitt isn’t the right man for the Republican nomination.

Hollowpoint, would you prefer Mitt! leave that issue for a different candidate, or non-candidate to address? As far as family values goes, Mitt! has some issues to defend, but family values is not one of them. He can, does, and should be taking the lead on it. Are you so offended by it? Is it not important?

If his message resonates with Americans, it will show Mitt! as a visionary who is willing to lead on a issue that the other candidates take for granted. Ala Ronald Reagan.

He’s more of a conservative than Fred “I do not remember lobbying for that abortion group and I regret supporting campaign finance reform” Thompson.

Mitt is unlikely to win the nomination.

And yet he is still called a front runner, leads in the early primary states, and has many supporters here at Hot Air. Fancy That.

Mitt is even unlikely win the general election if he did.

Despite the fact he has proven he can attract Democratic voters by say, getting elected with 50% of the vote in Massachusetts while still remaining conservative? If he doesn’t win it will be people like Hollowpoint on the Fred bandwagon who think our presidential priority list should be Fred 1st and Hillary 2nd because no one else deserves it.

Mitt isn’t the right man for the Republican nomination.

Hollowpoint on July 19, 2007 at 7:10 PM

I believe that is for the people electing the Republican nominee, not hollow points Hollowpoint to decide.

Hollowpoints fears about the 2nd amendment are legit. Gun owners have to fight for them or the libs will take them all. They don’t want to admit that there has to be limits on the types of weapons. The only question is…where is the line? I guarantee you that had the founding fathers had nuclear weapons, the second amendment would be very specific. The problem is the liberals have become so bat$hit crazy that you cannot reason with them.

I believe any citizen should be allowed to own a machine gun. I don’t think a .50 cal is reasonable, although I would LOVE to own two or three. But that’s my sacrifice to the others sides concerns.

Mitt! is by no stretch of the imagination a gun grabber. But he certainly has espoused limits that are further than I want to go. What is his position now? I don’t know, but it isn’t a hot button issue for me this election cycle.

I’m not sure I ever even brought up education; in any case it’s a state issue- the federal government has no role in education. Just as Bush has let us down by expanding the federal government’s role in education (despite lack of Constitutional mandate), so would Mitt likely do.

Perhaps he should instead just pointed out how the federal government has no place dictating curriculum

Well you did. It was only a couple posts up, you could have scrolled.

Be that as it may, you are constantly saying things you have no idea about. What in Romney’s record or rhetoric would lead you to believe he will be anything like Bush? Let me answer that for you. Nothing. Yet you say it. Why? Bush is from Texas, he’s not an east coast RINO. He’s one of yours.

While his MA health care plan isn’t as bad as Hillarycare, to suggest it’s not costing taxpayers money is false- it’s a mandatory program, with fines for not participating fully. Even then I don’t have a big issue with it being a PRM (People’s Republik of Massachussets) matter… but he want’s to bring it to the federal government too. Just what we need- another entitlement program. You’re already on medication if you think it wouldn’t grow into another massive entitlement program as is always the case

.

Once again, you just don’t know what you are talking about. You bet it’s mandatory. It says you have to have health care or you forfeit tax write-offs. He, for now the 80th time, wrote this in conjuction with the very conservative Heritage Foundation. The net benefit is that it has reduced the role of uninsured people who drive the cost of insurance and health care up for taxpayers, not created a single payer system and kept private insurance and choice available for everyone. Its too long and involved to put in a post but if you are really serious about learning the truth go the the Heritage Foundation, not a Romney or other candidate site.

Ah but back to the biggie, the 2nd Amendment.

As for the gun issue- remind me which of the other amendments of the Bill of Rights that elected officials get to declare void?

The herring that is red. Nobody has said the snd Amendment is void and you know it. What you really mean is you don’t like restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. But, as you well know, it happens all the time.

The 1st Amendment, the single most sacred right we as Americans have, has in fact been limited many times. The most obvious example that everyone knows is you don’t have the right to scream FIRE! in a crowded theater.

The restrictions you talk about have been through the court system and yes, were found to be consitutional, unlike the McCain/Feingold law, which, in a supreme example of irony, was most opposed by two interest groups. One is the National Right To Life group. The other, the National RIfle Association.

I heard Obama’s comments in full and like most of his positions his statement was vague, arrogant and obtuse. What’s with the shot at Romney, Allah? How about you explain to me why a kindergarten teacher should be explaning to a 5 year old where babies come from? And how exactly will parents opt out? Tell the 5 year old their Mommy doesn’t want them involved with the other kids so they have to sit in the hall by themselves?
I have yet to hear the wonderful Obama say anything half way intelligent or original, he seems to be nothing by cliches. Yet you seem very eager to use him to throw Romney under the bus. Hmm

Let me see, running for president the democrats have plagiarists, unindicted coconspirators, failed mayors who drove his city into the ground, Truthers, Ted Kennedy’s waterboy, an ambulance chaser who lies about his upbringing any chance he gets. A plethora of seedy characters. But lets make snide remarks about our own candidates before the primary season has even began.

Mitt is tied with McCain in the polls, and in matchups between Hillary or Obama he fares poorly, losing by double digits. He won in MA by running away from Reagan and the Republican party and as a “moderate” (read: RINO).

He bought Iowa for now, but that’ll change. In any case he certainly won’t win SC and NH is questionable at best.

He’s not a reliable conservative, he’s a pandering chameleon. I see no reason to trust him, but I understand there are some MA residents and Mormons pulling for their guy. Maybe if he throws another $9 million of his own money in the race he can finally break 15%.

Once again, you just don’t know what you are talking about. You bet it’s mandatory. It says you have to have health care or you forfeit tax write-offs. He, for now the 80th time, wrote this in conjuction with the very conservative Heritage Foundation.
JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 7:35 PM

I don’t care who helped him write it- I’d rather not have Big Brother tell me at gunpoint what kind of health insurance I have to carry, thankyouverymuch. I’d also not like to see yet another entitlement program that will inevitably balloon to cost hundreds of billions as Mitt’s would.

And what allowed the Clinton Gun Ban (to be renamed the Romney Gun Ban if he has his way) to pass court muster? Liberal judges. I’m to believe Romney would appoint constructionist judges who would overturn his own gun ban and health care mandatates? I don’t think so.

I don’t care who helped him write it- I’d rather not have Big Brother tell me at gunpoint what kind of health insurance I have to carry, thankyouverymuch. I’d also not like to see yet another entitlement program that will inevitably balloon to cost hundreds of billions as Mitt’s would.

You’re a perfect Fred voter. You have no idea what any of the candidates acutally represent. You don’t even want to know. You learn and speak in sound bites. And you’ll be shocked, SHOCKED, when your candidate turns out to not be the guy who represents what you think he does.

Don’t tell Allahpundit because in his eyes, Mitt’s tilting at windmills. The difference is, Mitt lived it. He knows exactly what Obama is talking about. And so does David Parker who wound up in jail over it.

The problem with your arguments against Romney are that they all look into the future to assume things Romney would do or what the effects of his policies would be (according to you) instead of just looking at his actual record.

he was for “age appropriate” sex ed before he was against it: link.

Read the article in full and it is clear that Obama was definately talking about small children while Romney was asked if there should be sex ed at all.

He won in MA by running away from Reagan and the Republican party and as a “moderate” (read: RINO).

How come opponents amunition seems to come from campaigns, or edited soundbytes? It seems opponents hope a general ignorance of his actual term as govenor, persists.

Romney was criticized by Massachusetts pro-choice groups when he began to push an abstinence-heavy focus on sex education

You people better wake up and stop doing the Dems jobs for them. Support your candidate to the hilt but avoid bashing the others and let the best man win. That way, you can back the eventual nominee with a clear conscience. I for won will do nothing, no matter how small, that may result in the disaster of Billary.

I support all the candidates (except Ron Paul) and will back the eventual winner. To do otherwise at this point in history, is unthinkable to me.

So, back to Mitt!….what do you think of this 2002 questionaire he filled out where he was for age appropriate sex ed in public schools?

In his defense, it did not nuance the question to kindergarten, so he does have some coverage on it. I’d like to see some other quotes from him expanding on this to get some context for just what grades he thought sex ed was acceptable for. My guess is that since he was pushing an abstinence only sex ed program, it must have started some where around 6th grade or later?

Also, if he felt sex ed at any younger age was unthinkable, he may have assumed the age-appropriate program would be in that general area and not all the way down to K to 3rd or 4th. Maybe.

You know what I think is odd? Dumb ass questions that people like you should know better than to ask. You are btter than that.

On the one hand, Romney is branded a freak, a cultist, because of his Mormon religion. A religion that preaches abstinence and morality.

On the other hand, there is Rudy. And Fred.

The question was a general one, should sex education be given to age appropriate kids in school. There’s no nuance needed. Don’t try to spin this into Mitt wanted sex education for kindergarteners. You can’t have it both ways. He is either a Mormon freak or Obama. He is also the first Gov in MA to roll out a huge abstinence program. Look it up.

I hope that this election will come down to the actual conservative lives and policies of not only the Republicans but the Democrats. That includes Fred, Rudy, Hillary and Obama.

This is democrat as usual.
Remember Ms.Joycelyn Elders brilliant idea,
teaching children to be in touch with their
intimate parts.
Obama and sex taught in Kindergarten,only one
word needs to be implied,that is NUTS.

Now on to that great and brilliant KICK-ASS PATTON SPEECH.
This speech is a must read,no I’m not kidding,don,t you
dare laugh.This speech to me isn’t a AMERICAN GUNG-HO.
Rather the exact thing thats going on now.
Read what he has to say about cowards,especially if they
were allowed to get back to the States.

Guys, really not worth the effort. Anyone who has paid attention to Hollowpoint (and yes the name is a give away) knows he only has one issue. Guns.
JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 10:44 PM

Yes, his desire to ban certain guns based largely on cosmetic appearances is a part of my problem with him. Let’s see, I’ve had quite a bit of bourbon at this point, but let me see if there’s anything else… nope- can’t think of anything.

Well, except for Romney’s Big Government, forced-at-gunpoint health care plan for the US that will add yet another entitlement program to the tax rolls.

And his Big Government education position; an area in which the federal government should have no role.

And his being for abortion and against Roe v Wade before he decided to follow in Daddy’s footsteps and run for the nomination.

And raising taxes and fees, refusing to pledge not to raise taxes until- you guessed it- he planned on running for President.

And distancing himself from Reagan and the Republican party before he named Reagan a hero and portrayed himself a conservative… just in time!

And being for “age appropriate” sex ed before he was against it (guess when that change came about?).

And his claim that he’d appoint constructionist judges while simultaneously supporting unconstitutional positions (oops, I at least partially alluded to guns again; sorry).

And spending money on “global warming” research before he was against it at a rather opportune time (wink, wink).

And his lack of electability, being very similar to Bush in his Big Government “compassionate conservatism” and politically connected, weathly upbringing (which he would be attacked on). Plus his failure to gain popularity in six months despite spending 9 million of his own money, his too-slick, pandering style, and (unfair though it might be) his religion, which will turn many off. And of course he blew a lead over Ted Kennedy to lose the Senate election.

But yeah, it’s just about guns. And I know- he campaigned one way to get elected in liberal MA, but supposedly governed another. Makes me feel so much better about him.

But talking to you is pointless, since he’s your local boy, and nothing he says, has done or will do is going to change your mind because you’re going to back the MA candidate no matter what. Don’t talk to me about backers of other candidates being uncritical of those they support.